Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but we need to hurry up that improvement. Some 220,000 people live in Cheltenham and Gloucester alone, and many more people in the area use the trains. There is a direct train only once every one hour52 minutes; on many trains, people have to change if they want to go to London, a journey which can take as long as two hours 36 minutes; and an open return often costs £139. That is a very poor service between an important area of the country and London, so we need that improvement. Will the Minister redouble his efforts in persuading Network Rail to take on that project?

Tom Harris: There is an ongoing debate in the industry about the length of franchises; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. However, there is no consensus on how long a franchise should last. I am of the view that the present length of between seven and 10 years is appropriate, and that it does not serve as a disincentive to train operating companies in making the necessary investment. The idea of a 20-year franchise has been mooted, butthat would not provide an incentive to improve performance, for example.

Gerry Sutcliffe: There is no Executive early release of prisoners. As the hon. Gentleman says, what we must do is cut reoffending, and we can do that by providing the right programmes to tackle it. The Prison Service is doing what it is doing and the probation service is doing whatever it can do, but reoffending rates arestill far too high. One way of reducing them is through the Offender Management Bill, which the hon. Gentleman's party is opposing.

Oliver Heald: Does the Minister not agree that although work and training, and the drugs-related programmes about which we have heard, are vital to stop criminals from reoffending, with the current overcrowding they are simply not available? If there is no purposeful activity and criminals are let out on to our streets with a "get out of jail free" card, will they not reoffend, committing crime after crime time after time?
	Given the Chancellor's refusal to fund the extra places that everyone knew were necessary for so many years, and given that the Minister of State, Ministryof Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), said only the other day that there were no extra funds, did it not take some brass neck for the Chancellor to stand up today and offer money for new places? How much confidence can the public really have that he will keep them safe?

David Hanson: I wish to repeat a statement made by the Lord Chancellor in another place.
	The Ministry of Justice has been in existence for five weeks. I announced on 9 May my Department's approach to penal policy. I announced that we would continue to protect the public by providing prison places for those whom the courts determine need custody, and that that would include asking the Sentencing Guidelines Council to review its guidance. I also made it clear that we should make best use of the best community sentences where evidence says that they reduce reoffending and offer more effective punishment, and that we would continue to deliver in line with the recommendations of Lord Carter's 2003 review, including end-to-end offender management and public service reform.
	Today, I wish to provide details to the House of how the Government will ensure that all those whom the courts send to prison can be accommodated. I will update the House on the detail of Lord Carter's inquiry into prisons, announce the building of further custodial places, and set out further measures to improve the functioning of our prisons and to reduce reoffending.
	We have made public protection from the most dangerous criminals a priority. We are bringing more offenders to justice than ever before—25 per cent. more than when we came into office. Those who commit violent or sexual offences can now receive an indeterminate prison sentence. The length of time for which criminals are sent to prison has increased, with the average custodial sentence in Crown courts rising by 25 per cent. between 1995-2005. As the House will know, more people are being sent to prison than ever before. That means that, overall, there are 40 per cent. more serious and violent offenders in prison than in 1997. Since 1997, the prison population has increased from 61,467 to 81,016 today, a record high.
	Nationally, crime is falling. There are 5.8 million fewer offences than in 1997, but we know we need to go further. We have been working intensively with 44 of our most deprived communities, where crime and disorder are highest, to reduce crime still further. Early indications show that the work is making an impressive impact and crime is falling at twice the rate in those areas than the national average. The Government are determined that the public be protected from dangerous offenders, and that court sentences and other orders be obeyed.
	In addition to those measures, we have taken stepsto increase the resources spent on community punishments and interventions designed to address the causes of crime among offenders. Tough community sentences have been developed, which have proved more than successful in reducing reoffending. As I announced to the House in May, we shall, therefore, extend and expand such schemes.
	We have built more than 20,000 more prison places since 1997, and we have a commitment today to build 8,000 more by 2012. We have increased expenditure on probation by 70 per cent. in real terms over the last10 years and, as an example of our commitment to addressing the causes of crime, we have increased expenditure on drug treatment programmes in prisons from £7.2 million in 1997 to £79 million in 2007-08.
	To help accommodate the current pressures, I can announce today that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available new money to build an additional 1,500 places over and above the 8,000 already announced. We will be starting work immediately on 500 of those extra places and thefirst of the additional places will come on stream in January 2008.
	As I announced on 9 May 2007, I have asked Lord Carter to look at the future of the estate and we will take decisions on the optimum timing and composition of the further 1,000 places announced today in the light of Lord Carter's final report. I am today publishing the terms of reference for his review. As the terms of reference make clear, Lord Carter will look at the long-term future of the prison estate and at both the supply and demand of prison places.
	Those additional measures will bring on more prison places, which are much needed. Currently, as I mentioned, the prison estate is near to full. To ensure that we can accommodate all those sent to prison by the courts, we will continue to rely on police cells, as a temporary measure, and where necessary court cells. I am personally grateful to chief constables in England and Wales for making police cells available to us where necessary and to the Court Service for more than100 court cells to date. The use of police cells may be necessary until the end of this year at the latest, pending the increase in capacity from some of the 8,000 prison places coming on stream and then, at the beginning of 2008, from the additional prison places I have announced today.
	In addition to increased prison capacity, I have authorised the issuing of guidance to prison governors to allow them to make wider use of the prison rules provisions to authorise release on licence for offenders who are coming to the end of their sentence. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] The guidance will authorise release on licence, in accordance with existing prison rules, up to 18 days before their release date, for those who have been sentenced to a determinate prison sentence of four years or less. This is a temporary measure.
	Let me be clear for all those in the House who are concerned— [ Interruption. ]

David Taylor: With prisons bursting at the seams and a new Department in charge, this is a watershed at which certain fundamental principles can be re-evaluated. Will the Minister say whether he intends to examine the key performance indicators within which the Prison Service is required to operate, because in the past organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust have criticised the KPIs, arguing that they do not measure whether the needs of the prison population are being met in areas such as the distance that prisoners are kept from home and time spent out of cells? Will he revisit that matter, which will respond to sensitive involvement by the new ministerial team?

Des Browne: On 16 April I announced that the Chief of the Defence Staff had appointed Lieutenant-General Sir Rob Fulton of the Royal Marines, currently the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar, to lead an inquiry into the operational circumstances surrounding the seizure of 15 of our personnel on 23 March. I also announced an independent review of the media handling of the incident and its aftermath, and subsequently confirmed that it would be led by Mr. Tony Hall, chief executive of the Royal Opera house and formerly the BBC's director of news and current affairs. I am grateful to General Fulton and Tony Hall, who have both completed their respective reports to tight deadlines with all the professionalism and candour that was expected of them. I am now informing the House of their findings, as I undertook to do.
	I begin by stressing that the two reports are very different in nature and therefore require different handling. Mr. Hall's review is a public document, which is today placed in the Library of the House and published on the MOD website. As I made clear in April, General Fulton's report is classified, because it addresses operational and tactical issues, which cannot be discussed in public without increasing the risks to our forces. Nevertheless, those events and the issues that they raise are legitimate subjects of parliamentary and public concern. To balance those factors, I decided that I would give a broad outline of General Fulton's findings to the House, but that the full report would be given to the Defence Committee. That has been done; I leave it to the Chairman and members of that Committee to comment today as they see fit.
	General Fulton highlights the complex and dynamic nature of the northern Gulf as an operating environment. We are there as part of a coalition maritime force carrying out a variety of demanding tasks against a backdrop of wider and rapidly evolving international issues. His report is impressively thorough. It has looked at every aspect of the incident, and others that may hold valuable lessons. To complete the report, he has carried out lengthy interviews with all the people involved and at every level of the chain of command.
	Hon. Members urged that specific matters should be considered, and I would like to tackle some of those points to the extent that I can do that, consistentwith the constraints of operational security that I mentioned.
	First, General Fulton considered the events on the Shatt al-Arab waterway in June 2004. He concluded that, although there were some broad similarities in the circumstances, the events were different, and that the requisite lessons of the time were learned and applied. Secondly, he considered the rules of engagement and confirmed that they were entirely appropriate for the task and remain so today. Thirdly, his report is clear that the event was not the result of equipment or resource issues, including helicopter availability, the size and suitability of the Cornwall or the size and armament of the boarding party's boats. The coalition force commander in the Gulf has reiterated that he is content with the capabilities deployed by the UK but, as ever, we keep that under review. Finally, General Fulton confirmed that the presence of the BBC on HMS Cornwall was not a factor in any of the operational decisions taken on 23 March.
	General Fulton has, however, identified some shortcomings. This was a coalition operation—hon. Members will not need me to spell out the merits of that—but clearly there is a cost in terms of added complexity. Despite that, it is vital that the procedures that we all share can adapt rapidly to change in such a complex strategic environment. General Fulton's report has identified some faults in that respect, and we are addressing them with our coalition partners.
	General Fulton has also identified some specific national shortcomings. The central lesson is that we must improve our ability to identify and assess the risks that this complex environment generates, and to train and posture our forces accordingly. He noted the need for improvements in a range of areas: in the handling of intelligence, in communications, in doctrine and in training—both individual and collective.
	On training in particular General Fulton notes—and this is worth repeating—that the Royal Navy's generic training for operations remains world class. By the time a Royal Navy ship deploys on operations, it is well prepared for a wide range of potential roles. However, the report does identify a need to improve some training specific to particular tasks, including boarding. Furthermore, it recommends that in future we deploy specialist rather than composite teams for boarding operations—a recommendation that we have already acted on. General Fulton also recommends that we ensure that we learn quickly from the experience of other nations operating in the area and get better at sharing information with them.
	Above all, General Fulton's report concludes that the events of 23 March were not the result of a single gross failing or individual human error, but of the coming together of a series of vulnerabilities, many relatively small when viewed in isolation, which together placed our personnel in a position that could be exploited by Iran. His conclusions suggest that there is no case for disciplinary action against any of the individuals involved— [Interruption.]—but his report emphasises that many of those individuals could have done more to prevent what happened. In that respect, it identifies some failings, both collective and individual, which the Royal Navy's chain of command will consider and deal with.
	General Fulton recommends a range of actions to address the shortcomings that he has identified. An action plan has been drawn up and a number of measures have already been taken, allowing us to recommence boarding operations in April, and further measures are under way. The Select Committee on Defence has been briefed on the action plan, but as I indicated at the start, there is a limit to how much I can say to the House. I can say that I, together with the chiefs of staff, are content that General Fulton's report and the resulting action plan will ensure that our people are properly prepared for future operations.
	I turn to the Hall review, and let me say at the outset that we accept all of its recommendations. In my statement to the House on 16 April, I made it clear that the intention of the review was not to embark on a witch hunt focused on apportioning blame for the decision to allow media payments to the returning detainees. Like the Fulton report, the Hall review confirms that it would be wrong and counter-productive to focus on finding individuals to blame for these events. What was needed was a calm and dispassionate assessment of what happened in order to learn the lessons and to improve the ability of the MOD and the services to handle similar events in future.
	Tony Hall makes it plain that on the question of whether payment should have been made for individual stories, there was a
	"collective failure of judgement or an abstention of judgement"
	within the department allowing that to happen. In my earlier statement to Parliament, I accepted that failing as my responsibility and apologised to the House.
	I welcome the report's clear recommendation that media payments to serving military or civilian personnel for talking about their work should simply not be allowed. That confirms my announcement on 9 April of an interim ban on acceptance of media payments. Work is now under way to make detailed amendments to service and MOD regulations and guidance to reflect that conclusion. The report further identifies that work is needed to establish a clearer policy on the naming of individuals and their families in such cases. That work, too, is already under way.
	The report also identifies some broader themes. Perhaps most crucial is the huge change over the past 25 years in the context in which media coverage of operations takes place. Media access has increased significantly and the agenda has changed. The focus on the individual, for example, inevitably clashes with the service ethos of group first, and the desire to present instantaneous news from the heart of the action can conflict with the need for operational security. That means that, although it is clearly in the interests of the MOD and the media to co-operate, tensions exist. We need to manage those tensions better, and we need to rebuild confidence between the MOD and the media. The report also makes it clear that we need to help the media to develop a better understanding of defence issues so that they can be set in context.
	The report recommends that, for the future, the lead for the media handling of such episodes should lie clearly with the MOD, rather than with a front-line command or a single service. It also recommends some strengthening of what the report notes is a relatively small central press office. The report also makes clear a number of recommendations on the need for clearer decision-making processes. I accept those entirely. Unequivocal understanding of who should sanction what is essential. The recent capability review, published in March, also highlights that, and in response we have already been looking at how we can clarify responsibilities and improve accountability within the Department.
	I hope that it is clear that we have sought, wherever possible, to learn the lessons from this difficult episode, both operationally and in terms of media handling, and to be open and accountable in so doing. We have had two reviews: one independently led, and today put into the public domain; the second, of necessity, classified, but shared with the Defence Committee to ensure proper parliamentary accountability. Both are very thorough and professional. Both offer clear, detailed recommendations, all of which we accept, and many of which are already well in hand. Both are focused on the future, determined to help ensure that we do not make these mistakes again. The Chief of the Defence Staff and my permanent secretary will take the lead in implementing the recommendations. I expect the great majority to be implemented by the end of this year, and many of them sooner than that.
	I will end by saying that I know that we have the best armed forces in the world. They are respected everywhere for their bravery, their professionalism and their ability to get results. Some have argued that this incident has dented their hard-won reputation, but I do not believe that to be true. Their reputation is more durable than that. These reports will help us to maintain and enhance that reputation, and I intend to ensure that we succeed.

Des Browne: I think that I can deal with all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that any of them transgressed the border between what we can discuss in the House and what cannot be discussed for reasons of operational security.
	Let me say at the outset that mistakes were made—of that there is no doubt—and I have accepted full responsibility. There are matters that must be put right, which is why I was determined that we would conduct the two reviews whose results I have announced today. I asked for the faults to be exposed and for recommendations to be made on how they could be corrected, and I believe that both General Fulton and Tony Hall have done that for us. I intend to see this through, and will see through the operational side with the supervision of the Select Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of resources. That was addressed in the report. As I said in my statement, the report makes it clear that the incident did not result from equipment or resource issues. Indeed, the coalition maritime commander has explicitly said he is content that he has the resources required for the tasks that he is given; but, as ever, we keep resources under review. I have said many times that we will always seek to give commanders the resources they need forthe job that we ask of them, and we will keep those resources under consideration as part of our continuing review.
	There has been a great deal of speculation about helicopters, but the bottom line is that if the helicopter had been asked to stay at the scene, it could have done so. There is sufficient helicopter support for these operations. That issue, however, comes within the broader continuing review of resources.
	Was there an intelligence failure? General Fulton's inquiry centred on exactly that sort of question. Clearly, any failings in this regard would be operationally sensitive, but I can tell the House that there were shortcomings, which will be addressed through a plan overseen by the chiefs of staff. The Select Committee has been briefed in detail, and I do not intend to go into any further details.
	The generic training given to the Navy through FOST—flag officer sea training—was considered to be world class against the test of the review, but a shortcoming was identified in relation to the need to train for specific tasks, particularly boarding. That is exactly what has been addressed, as well as the issue of there being specifically nominated boarding parties instead of the way in which they were previously put together.
	The BBC was present on HMS Cornwall at the time. General Fulton's reputation goes before him, and I am sure that all who know him know that he has done a thorough and professional job. He has come tothe view that the BBC's presence had no operational effect.
	I shall now turn to the Hall report and the media—

Des Browne: I of course respect the hon. Gentleman's position as a Member of this House. In handling this report in this way, I sought to square the issue of confidentiality and the secrecy that was necessaryto protect operational security with parliamentary accountability, but I recognise that I do not have the last word in relation to that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about training, but I fundamentally disagree with him about the rules of engagement. The Fulton report contains no criticism of the rules of engagement, nor does it suggest that they were inappropriate for the operation that was being carried out. In fact, it says the contrary.

Des Browne: I know that the hon. Lady is an assiduous student of issues in relation to defence, and particularly the security of our operations and the safety of our armed forces. I commend her for the work that she does in that regard, but she may well have misunderstood the information that I have given the House.
	On training, the recommendation is that we continue to do the world-class generic training that we do for the crew of ships as we deploy them, on the basis that ships are deployed for nine months, that they are quite often diverted to do quite diverse things when they are on deployment, and that the generic training has served us well for a long period. However, that ought to be augmented by some specific training, particularly in relation to boarding, if that is likely to be part of the function of a ship when it is deployed. There is no question of chasing responsibility for someone not having done that in the past.
	I do not accept that there was a failure of discipline. I am not going to sit here on these green Benches or stand here at this Dispatch Box and judge these young people on their behaviour in circumstances that I have not experienced. The last time I came to the Dispatch Box, I said that experts in interrogation assured me that their behaviour was well within the bounds of whatwas permissible and acceptable in relation to their responsibilities. I can do no more than repeat that to the House.

Paul Goodman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may have seen that Mr. Ijaz-ul-Haq, the religious affairs Minister of Pakistan, is reported to have said the following about the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie:
	"If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so, unless the British Government...withdraws the'sir' title."
	The Minister then went on to praise suicide bombing.
	The House will of course be mindful of the horror of the loss of life experienced on 7/7. Mr. Ijaz-ul-Haq's remarks can reasonably be read—

Paul Goodman: The point of order is this, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those remarks can reasonably be read as incitement to terrorism in Britain. Have you had any notice that Ministers are prepared to come before the House to say whether they have demanded thatthe Government of Pakistan disassociate themselves from Mr. Ijaz-ul-Haq's pro-terror remarks, and have condemned them unreservedly?

David Taylor: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the improvement of all council homes and estates; to provide for the building of new council housing; to promote equal financial treatment between local authorities and registered social landlords in the provision of affordable housing; to reserve certain rents and capital receipts for direct investment in council housing; to provide for the protection of rights to life-long secure tenancies and of tenants from involuntary changes of ownership and management; to further regulate and make requirements of registered social landlords; and for connected purposes.
	Next Wednesday, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will take over as our new party and national leader. He told the Amicus conference yesterday that he plans to review housing policies, and I hope that my modest measure will help to inform that process. Our nation faces growing housing problems that can be met only by building new, and improving existing, council housing, and by having a fair financial balance between local authorities and housing associations in the provision of affordable housing.
	Since 1997, fewer than 1,800 council houses have been built in total—in contrast to an average figure of well over 180,000 each year in the decades following the election of the Attlee Government. Despite a great cost to the taxpayer and an enormous loss of accountability, the private sector, including registered social landlords, has built at an annual rate of only 15,000 homes in the past 10 years. It has proved to be incapable of dealing with the increasing overcrowding and homelessness in many parts of our land; only a renaissance in public sector construction can do that.
	There is a strong national consensus on the matter. Some 3 million tenants, 1.6 million households on waiting lists, trade unions and councillors of all parties are agreed. The six candidates for the Labour party deputy leadership have said that we must have a new housing policy and three successive party conferences have voted to encourage and finance direct investment in council housing—the fourth option. It is the purpose of the Bill to provide a legal framework for that fourth option so that it can be an addition to, or a replacement for, the current three options, which are all seriously defective.
	The option promoted most enthusiastically is stock transfer to a registered social landlord, which, in law and practice, is privatisation disguised under the thinnest of veneers. Legally, housing associations are private companies and they borrow directly from the private market. RSL board members are often paid, banks are in the driving seat, and executives are on inflated pay scales, funded by soaring rents from hard-pressed tenants. Councils that are trying to coerce or bully their tenants into stock transfer will claim that the Government's rent convergence formula ensures that rents will increase by the same amount whether tenants transfer or not, but in reality that formula is worthless. New tenants can be pitchforked up to the target rent immediately, service charges are not included and the valuation method can and will be manipulated to generate much higher rents.
	My Bill would aim to protect tenants' rights to lifelong secure tenancies, which are sacrificed following a stock transfer. The assured tenancy on offer is not the same thing at all because a promise by a new registered social landlord not to use its greater powers in law, for example on eviction, is nothing like comparable to the statutory rights that secure tenants have at the moment. Although we are told that transfers will be made to "community based" organisations, that often does not last because landlords can get into a financial mess and be taken over by remote businesses, or can become caught up in the merger mania that is fuelled by the Housing Corporation's drive for mega RSL groupings. We should not forget that tenants have no vote on such takeovers and mergers and that the new owners of the housing have no obligation to deliver on old promises made by others.
	The Bill would protect tenants from the scandals that we see when unscrupulous and uncaring councils use large-scale funding that comes from the pockets of local taxpayers to run misleading and unbalanced campaigns to frighten tenants into voting for stock transfers. Together with so-called independent consultants and advisers, they produce dubious glossy propaganda booklets that, in essence, say to tenants, "You have no alternative but to vote yes to transfer." That is an outrage. We need no crystal ball to point to the cracks and stains on the rosy pictures painted by those who are hell-bent on flogging off, at a knock-down price, public assets that were built by and for successive generations of tenants and taxpayers.
	The track record of stock transfers is often pretty dreadful. Shelter found that homelessness worsened in areas with stock transfers, while the National Audit Office said that it cost thousands more to improve each home after transfer than would be the case if councils were just given the money to do the work themselves, which the Bill proposes. Any genuine consultation on the future of publicly owned housing must, as a minimum, ensure that tenants hear all the arguments, that there is equal access to public funds for both sides of the case to be put, and that there is a formal ballot on any change. As that is just what the Bill spells out, I urge a moratorium on any further ballots until the new Prime Minister's housing policy becomes clearer.
	May I turn to my Bill's proposals to ring-fence rents and capital receipts for direct investment and to require equal financial treatment in the provision of affordable homes for local authorities, and for housing associations and other RSLs? The argument of the ancien régime about to leave office is that we simply cannot afford the level of investment in publicly owned housing that is brought in by private finance. There are two fatal fundamental flaws in that approach: first, the theory that there is no cost to the taxpayer in the options for privatisation when there most definitely is; and, secondly, the theory that there is a huge increase in public expenditure with direct investment when there most certainly is not. Tenants are right to demand a level building site for councils on which the fourth option can be constructed, as opposed to the three privatisation options. The same amount of public funds spent on subsidising stock transfers, arm's length management organisations and the private finance initiative should be available in the growing number of cases when council housing is retained.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that right to buy sales have yielded almost £50 billion, but that just a quarter has been recycled into improving public housing. The moonlight robbery campaign points out that tenants pay an average of £800 per year more in rents than they get back in management, maintenance and major repairs. That represents a national annual total of more than £1.5 billion. It is unacceptable that money is being leeched from council housing and council tenants in such huge volumes to subsidise private developers that are building houses that are still priced way out of the reach of ordinary, hard-working families.
	The unequal financial treatment between unaccountable and often remote housing associations and democratically elected local housing authorities defies belief. For example, making debt write-off conditional on stock transfer is a form of blackmail, and my Bill would bring that to an end. The Auditor General has stated that that form of debt repayment has no net effect on the Exchequer, so why is it denied to local housing authorities, but doled out to RSLs?
	Rental income must be ring-fenced in the national housing revenue account and the pooling of local rents for national distribution needs an overhaul. Housing support for hard-up areas should come from the taxpayer, not the tenant. The rigging of write-offs and gap-funding subsidies to make RSL business plans stack up is a stitch-up. A fresh approach that is rooted in real, unforced choice for tenants, and fair financial deals for councils, with the availability of debt write-off and gap funding, would benefit millions of people throughout the land. Waiting lists will shorten, overcrowding will lessen and living conditions will improve. Council estates can again be the stable and mixed communities in which many in the House, like me, have lived. I was proud to standin the 2005 election on a manifesto that stated:
	"By 2010 we will ensure that all social tenants benefit from a decent, warm home with modern facilities."
	We have three years to make good on that pledge.
	In the Government's response to Kate Barker's review of the supply of housing was a promise, as part of the 2007 comprehensive spending review, to respond
	"with an ambitious plan for increasing social housing supply, with new investment alongside further efficiencies and innovation in provision".
	Option 4 is indeed a policy whose time has come.
	We must defend and extend council housing. No wonder so many people are putting up their hands for it. There is a strong business case for direct investment. There is a powerful social case for constructing council housing to tackle the affordable housing crisis, and there will be a political dividend from reaffirming a core value that council housing is not some obsolete policy from a bygone era, but a key economic activity that adds to our national wealth, promotes social inclusion and is a robust, high value and sustainable solution for one of the most pressing problems that face a new Administration planning their priorities for the next three years.
	I am sure that that Administration will recognise that council housing is cheaper to build, manage and maintain than all the alternatives and, most importantly, is more accountable. I hope sincerely that this Bill is a suitable foundation for an overdue and much needed new direction in affordable housing both in theory and in practice, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by David Taylor, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Frank Dobson, Paul Flynn, Dr. Ian Gibson, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr. Brian Iddon, Lynne Jones, Andrew Mackinlay, Paul Rowen, Bob Russell and Mr. Phil Willis.

David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to promote the improvement of all council homes and estates; to provide for the building of new council housing; to promote equal financial treatment between local authorities and registered social landlords in the provision of affordable housing; to reserve certain rents and capital receipts for direct investment in council housing; to provide for the protection of rightsto life-long secure tenancies and of tenants from involuntary changes of ownership and management; to further regulate and make requirements of registered social landlords; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 127].

Madam Deputy Speaker: With thisit will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 2, page 4, line 18, after 'care' insert—
	'(but see also subsection (4) below)'.
	No. 3, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
	'(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) Any reference in this Act to medical treatment, in relation to mental disorder, shall be construed as a reference to medical treatment the purpose of which is to alleviate, or prevent a worsening of, the disorder or one or more of its symptoms or manifestations.".'.

Chris Bryant: The amendments are in my name and that of all the Back-Bench Labour members of the Committee—I hope the Minister is aware of that—and some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. The three amendments tie together rather oddly, sofor clarity I should explain that they would have the effect of rendering section 145(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 as:
	"'medical treatment' includes nursing, psychological intervention and specialist mental health habilitation, rehabilitation and care (but see also subsection (4) below).
	(4) Any reference in this Act to medical treatment, in relation to mental disorder, shall be construed as a reference to medical treatment the purpose of which is to alleviate, or prevent a worsening of, the disorder or one or more of its symptoms or manifestations."
	The British Medical Association has written to all Members of the House, I think, to say:
	"This is the central clinical and ethical issue in relation to the legislation...the BMA strongly advocates the inclusion of a requirement that the use of the legislation must provide therapeutic benefit and could support the amendment subject to firm assurances that 'manifestations' referred to are clearly linked to underlying clinical conditions."
	The BMA is not the only organisation that is urging the Government to accept the amendment. Mind, the mental health charity, for which I ran the marathon earlier this year, has written to say:
	"We also welcome the amendment tabled by Chris Bryant MP"
	and other Members
	"which would re-introduce a requirement to the 1983 Act that compulsory treatment must be of therapeutic benefit."
	Likewise, Hafal, the mental charity in Wales, has also supported the three amendments. The Mental Health Coalition, the new combination of organisations including Unite, which is my trade union, Unison, the Royal College of Nursing, the College of Occupational Therapists, the British Psychological Society and the British Association of Occupational Therapists, has also written to say:
	"We are supportive of this amendment and have made this clear to the Minister, we are urging her to accept it and would encourage MPs to support the amendment."
	Finally, the Mental Health Alliance has written to say that it welcomes the amendment, although it has some concerns about the concept of manifestations and would want ministerial assurances that what it refers to is clearly part of the mental disorder.
	It is perhaps important to stress some of the context in which the amendment comes before us. Ever since 1324, we have had in statute some provision to detain people solely by virtue of their mental ill health, although I apologise for the terms in which the legislation was couched in 1324, when the royal prerogative asserted that the king had jurisdiction over the persons and property of "idiots" and those who happened to "fail of" their "Wit". Obviously, legislation moved substantially, and in the Vagrancy Act 1714, we had the first articulation of how we should be able to detain somebody purely by virtue of their mental ill health. That subsequently translated into the Mental Health Act 1959 and then the 1983 Act, which made clear the requirement for a therapeutic environment.
	The principles that I feel are important in this issue are pretty straightforward. First, no psychiatric unit can be a prison by another name; it must be a therapeutic environment. Secondly, any person, whatever their mental condition, whether or not it is a condition that we presently believe is curable, must have the right to appropriate treatment and we cannot simply wash our hands of them.

Chris Bryant: I return to the first principle that I articulated, namely that no psychiatric unit should be a prison by another name. However pleasantly it might be arranged, we cannot detain people just for the purpose of detaining them, and there must be some kind of therapeutic benefit. That is the purpose of the amendment.
	We also need to adhere to two other important principles. First, the public have a right to protection. Historically, mental health legislation has always allowed for the protection of the public. Originally, the legislation addressed the protection of the King, but it was subsequently extended to cover all members of the public.
	I know from personal experience in my family that families, friends and carers of those who have significant mental health problems sometimes want mental health services to have the right to detain and sometimes feel that mental health services were too hesitant in detaining somebody, because they consequently saw that person travel further and further down the route towards significant mental ill health in a way that they think is irretrievable.
	Having said that, it is important to bear in mind that I do not believe that the Bill will balance the rights of the patient, the rights of the public and the rights of families and friends on the security of society and the rights and freedoms of the individual without some kind of treatability test. The treatability test insection 3(2)(b) of the 1983 Act specifies that
	"in the case of psychopathic disorder or mental impairment, such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition".
	That is clear, but it refers only to those with a psychopathic disorder or mental impairment and not to those with other mental disorders. Because of the way in which we are changing the 1983 Act, any treatability test that we introduce tonight will apply to not only the historical definition of "psychopathic disorder", but anybody who might be detained for any mental disorder.
	As I am sure that all hon. Members know, the Lords insisted that there should be a treatability test and inserted one almost identical to that in the 1983 Act, before the Commons Committee—I see that most of its members are here this afternoon—removed it. However, I believe that there is a need to insert a form of treatability test if we are to get the balance right. The Lords version of the treatability test sets too high a hurdle because it insists on the word "likely ", as in a treatment being
	"likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration in his condition."
	Likelihood is a very high hurdle. Is it more than 50 per cent. likely—that is what "likely" means in most dictionary definitions—that the treatment will produce one of those two outcomes? That is difficult to argue. It is also difficult to argue at the beginning of an individual's treatment under detention that their condition will be alleviated or will not deteriorate further, because the process of detention or of starting treatment may itself bring about a deterioration in the condition.
	On top of that, most medical treatment is not subject to a "likelihood" clause—that is not the hurdle that we set. Many treatments are provided where there is only a one in four or a one in three chance of alleviating the condition. That is why we should move towards the purpose of the treatment being the most important element.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	My speech will take a little longer than the Minister just took in eventually forcing herself to say that she supported the last amendment we discussed. I hope that she will take a little less time to reach the same denouement on new clause 12. It should come as no surprise to her, as it mirrors amendments tabled in the Lords which she promptly savaged in Committee on very poor grounds. I hope that she has reconsidered and consulted experts, and will admit the error of her ways by now agreeing to restore this rightful amendment to the Bill, whose provisions were originally added to it in the Lords.
	New clause 12 represents a basic principle of mental health law: that patients should be involved in, and informed about, their treatment. People with mental illness are unpredictable. That is not something that just happens and goes away; it can come back, and people might live with many episodes of mental illness over many years. As a result, many people with mental illness develop a great knowledge of what works best for them when the illness flairs up; they develop coping mechanisms. They will therefore have their own views on the long-term use of what are powerful and potentially harmful drugs. Such drugs might be deeply unpalatable for some; we have addressed side effects in the past, such as weight gain, diabetes and disabling, embarrassing and at times painful movement disorders.
	It is essential that patients are involved in, and informed about, their treatment, and where they retain capacity, as many do, their wishes should be respected. The principle that compulsion should be the last resort underlies our approach to the Bill. For people with a mental illness, the best forms of therapy involve the trust of the clinician, who has the power to prescribe powerful—mind-altering or physical feature-altering—drugs. More than for any physical illness, it is essential that there is a position of trust between the patient and the clinician.
	We must respect the autonomy, personal integrity and personal responsibility of the patient. That is a basic human right. In the Bill in its current form—without the impaired decision-making amendments,as added in the Lords—there are inconsistencies compared with how we treat physical illness. The Bill is also still stigmatising, so we have reinserted the amendment that gives an impaired decision-making test, acknowledging that if someone suffers from a mental disorder, it does not automatically mean that they are not fully able to make decisions. That should help to reduce stigma and enhance personal autonomy and responsibility. I would hope that the Minister—along with all the other people and organisations who are interested in mental health—supports that.
	The addition of the impaired decision-making provision also makes the grounds for non-consensual medical interventions for people with a mental disorder similar to those for people with a physical disorder, thereby helping to reduce stigma and discrimination. I think that all Members agree that far too much stigma is still attached to mental illness. We have a lot more to do to reach a position where somebody going for treatment for a mental illness is viewed no differently from somebody going to a hospital for treatment for an illness such as cancer or heart disease. We are still a long way from achieving that. At the basis of our perceptions on this subject and how we can change them is the way we configure our laws on how people with mental illness are treated. That is why an impaired decision-making test is essential.

Tim Loughton: Hold on. I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon(Dr. Harris). Of course I will give way generously, as I always try to do, to the hon. Lady, if I may first finish my sentence—which I have now forgotten, so I give way.

Tim Loughton: I shall not give way for a while, as several conversations seem to be going on at the same time. Those hon. Members who want to make a contribution to the debate should do so before the Minister accepts the new clause.
	The breadth of the law as its stands contrasts with the provisions in most countries, where the seriousness of a condition, or the harm that might be caused, are essential criteria for detention. We consider that the criterion of impaired decision making provides a preferable alternative to the seriousness criterion in the 2004 Bill, because it is more specific and directs the clinician to the correct issue of patient choice and autonomy.
	The vast majority of people with a mental illness, like those with a physical illness, retain in full their ability to make their own decisions throughout. They are treated by GPs or psychiatrists without being detained. Of those who are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 some, as I have said, will alsoretain their capacity. A recent study found that 15 per cent. of detained patients, especially those who had been detained on a previous occasion, retained their capacity.
	The authors of that report also found that a capacity test worked with a high level of reliability, which answers part of the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). The IDM test imposes a lower threshold, and does not apply to section 2 patients. If it were passed into law, I believe it would lower the percentage of detained patients who retain their capacity.
	What are the consequences of failing to take account of decisions taken by a person who has insight into his condition and is fully capable of making a choice? I think that there are four. First, patients with full capacity come to resent their psychiatrists. As I said earlier, they tend to avoid their services for fear of being forced to have treatment that they do not want and which they believe may be harmful to them physically. That in turn can lead to them becoming more ill, with some slipping below the clinical radar or being deterred from presenting in the first place.
	Secondly, patient outcomes may be damaged if personal decisions are not taken into account. Thirdly, patients may be harmed by treatment that may be unnecessary, and fourthly—and most importantly—stigma is increased. Failing to take account of vulnerable people's decisions can, and does, destroy their trust in the medical profession, on whose members they rely for mental and physical health.
	Inevitably, detention in hospital is a major disruption to a person's life. In the context of the blame culture, in which every tragedy caused by a patient can potentially be attributed to misjudgments by a psychiatrist, psychiatrists often feel required to section patients against their better judgement or the best interests of those patients.
	The predictable consequence of the present law is that people with full capacity can stay away from the psychiatrist because they can justify an irrational fear of being detained. In that sense, the law is totally counter-productive: as I have said before, we need patients to engage early.
	Tony Zigmond, vice-president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has followed our proceedings very closely and I am sure that he is doing so at the moment. He has said:
	"Enabling people to feel able to seek help early, to talk about their fears and difficulties, without fearing scorn, humiliation or loss of status, freedom, job and friends is the best way to bring about improvement in their health".
	As in other areas of medicine, the best outcomes are achieved when patients engage early, take a full and active role in their treatment and have trust in their psychiatrist or other professional. In that connection, the NICE guidelines on anxiety state:
	"involving individuals in an effective partnership with healthcare professionals, with all decision making being shared, improves outcomes".
	Another aspect of the problem is the stigma felt by members of the black and minority ethnic community. They strongly support the new clause, and feel deeply stigmatised by the present law. The figures for the disproportionate detention and sectioning of people from the BME community bear out those fears.

Ann Coffey: I gave the hon. Gentleman every chance: he just did not manage a satisfactory response.
	The second set of provisions in chapter 3 is entitled "Consent to treatment". Clause 27 deals with electroconvulsive therapy, for example, which can be administered only if an "approved clinician" has
	"certified in writing...that the patient is not capable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effects of the treatment".
	It is important that the same tests are applied in all parts of the Bill. The new clause would insert the new test
	"that because of his"—
	that is, the patient's—
	"mental disorder, his ability to make decisions about the provision of medical treatment is significantly impaired."
	That is different from the test used elsewhere in theBill, which is based on the phrase "capable of understanding". When challenged about whether the new test was the same or different, higher or lower, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—having being prompted by his colleagues in the Gallery—explained that it was a lower test.
	That is not very satisfactory. The proposed additional test would be applied at a very important and significant moment in a patient's life, and in the lives of his friends and carers. As a result of it, the patient would be compulsorily admitted to hospital for treatment of an underlying mental disorder that might be putting him or others at risk. It is not satisfactory for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to be unable to say whether the test was higher or lower—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, page 39, line 20, in clause 41, at end insert—
	'(4) In section 135(6) for the words from "means" to the end of that subsection substitute—
	"(a) (i) residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29),
	(ii) a hospital as defined by this Act,
	(iii) an independent hospital or care home for mentally disordered persons,
	(iv) any other suitable place the occupier of which is willing temporarily to receive the patient or, if, in the circumstances of the case it is impracticable to use any of these places,
	(b) a police station".
	(5) In section 136 (Mentally disordered persons found in public places) of the 1983 Act after subsection (2) insert—
	"(3) Where a police station is used as the place of safety the person may not be detained there for a period longer than24 hours."'.

Tim Loughton: We have only a little time left to consider the final groups of amendments, and I am sure hon. Members who wish to participate are especially keen to comment on the exclusions from mental disorder provisions in the second raft of amendments. I shall therefore speak only briefly about the first raft, and mainly about new clause 11. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) is keen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss amendment No. 88.
	The British Association of Social Workers has supported and provided briefing notes for the new clause, which covers warrants to search for and remove patients. It would update the 1983 Act, which is out of date and causes some problems. Section 135 of the 1983 Act allows magistrates, on the application of an approved social worker, to issue a warrant when it is necessary to gain access to private premises to assess someone for possible admission under the Act. Warrants are requested far more often than they were.
	In addition, court procedures have been tightened up, and the approved social worker now needs to make a formal application to the court, supported by written evidence. That has served to highlight the shortcomings of section 135, which does not reflect the whole range of circumstances in which warrants are needed and, indeed, issued, forcing approved social workers and magistrates to bend the law to ensure that access can always be gained to someone who is in urgent need of admission to hospital. The reason is that the section basically dates from the Lunacy Act 1890 and the Mental Deficiency Act 1913. It has never been updated to conform with modern needs and circumstances.
	The section provides for a warrant to be issued in only two circumstances: when the person lives alone and is unable to care for themselves, and when the person does not live alone but is being
	"ill-treated, neglected or kept otherwise than under proper control."
	It covers only whether the person is cared for, not whether that person needs treatment or is a danger to themselves or others. That is because, back in 1890, there was no treatment. If there was a danger to self or others, it was assumed that the police would use common law to gain entry. However, their common law powers are greatly circumscribed by section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows them to enter only in dire emergency
	"for the purpose of saving life or limb."
	If, therefore, someone who lives alone harbours paranoid beliefs about their neighbours but can still care for themselves, the professionals have no power to gain access to them to assess the need for admission. They must effectively wait until an assault has been committed and they can then be arrested. By the same token, a warrant cannot be obtained when the person is living with someone else who does not neglect or ill treat them, even if that someone else is a child, infirm or unable to allow access. In some cases, family members, far from ill treating or neglecting the mentally disordered person, are concerned about them and desperate for them to receive treatment but are too frightened of them to let the police and the professionals into the house against their wishes. A high proportion of cases in which access is plainly justified do not fulfil the existing criteria, forcing approved social workers to misrepresent circumstances to obtain a warrant.
	We have modified the new clause since it was first debated in the Lords to tackle a valid objection by the Minister in the other place that it deleted an existing power to obtain access to someone who needed care other than for mental disorder. The new clause now retains existing powers but deletes the stigmatising phrase "not under proper control". As a witness to the Joint Scrutiny Committee put it, inclusion of the phrase made it sound as though we were talking about dogs.
	The new clause now provides for access to be gained in any circumstances in which it is necessary for the professional to carry out an assessment for possible admission under the 1983 Act. However, it also imposes a new restriction that a warrant can be granted only when it has not been possible to gain access without one. That is designed to prevent the widespread misuse of the current system whereby the police insist on obtaining a warrant even when access has not been denied or it is not certain that that will be the case.
	We believe that the restriction would require the approved mental health professional to demonstrate to the magistrates that all reasonable efforts had already been made to gain access by non-forcible means. It is therefore likely that the new clause would reduce rather than increase the number of warrants issued. Lest there is a concern about increasing the range of circumstances in which the police can enter private property, it should be noted that clause 228 of the 2004 draft Mental Health Bill—may it rest in peace—which the Government abandoned more than a year ago, contained much greater powers for the police to enter private property by force without a warrant, and purely at the request of an AMHP in circumstances in which a person was in urgent need of care and control to prevent him from causing serious harm to himself or others. Even the extension of police powers that the new clause proposes would not extend as far as that, as a case for forcible access would always have to be made in the magistrates court.
	The new clause is slightly technical but the law is clearly out of line with current practice and I hope that the Minister will accept it in the constructive and positive way in which I move it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak about amendment No. 88, but he isnot moving it at this time. At the moment, only new clause 11 is being moved. If and when there is any question of a vote on amendment No. 88, the hon. Gentleman may move it formally.

Rosie Winterton: I have been setting out what is in the Bill at the moment, but amendment No. 88 seeks to change some of that. When this was debated in the other place, where it was also a matter of concern, we tabled amendments to sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act to allow people to be transferred from one place of safety to another. That will enable a person who has initially been taken to a police station to be moved to another, more suitable, place of safety when appropriate. That was not possible under the current Bill, so we have changed the legislation so that a person with a mental disorder may be moved from a police cell to another place of safety. That will help to reduce the amount of time that some people spend at a police station.
	We are backing up this strategy with money:£42 million has been made available to improve the mental health estate, and £58 million this year. Some of that money will facilitate an increase in hospital-based places of safety, which will also reduce the amount of time that some people spend in police stations. In the new code of practice for England, we also intend to reinforce the aim for police stations to be used as a place of safety only as a last resort—for example, only if nowhere more suitable is available. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that the code will have some force, particularly in legal cases.

Rosie Winterton: We have held discussions with representatives of the Police Federation and, if my memory serves me correctly, they produced some figures from a particular area. We said to them that it would be helpful to look at best practice and to determine where the relationship between the health services and the police worked well, with a view to getting people into a hospital-based place of safety as quickly as possible. That is why they were pleased about the changes that we have made in the Bill. We also hope that some of the wider measures that we are taking through our amending Bill, such as introducing supervised community treatment, will prevent the kind of revolving-door syndrome that the hon. Gentleman has described, whereby people are discharged from hospital, become ill and are taken in again.
	I cannot agree to the new clause or the amendment, but I must reiterate that I understand some of the feelings behind them. If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) would be interested in seeing how we are changing the code of practice, I would be more than happy to engage him in that process. I hope that that will offer him some reassurance that we are determined to improve the situation.

Tim Loughton: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but we do not want to create a loophole that might allow paedophiles to escape.
	We have proposed this measure to be helpful by addressing the specific concern that the Minister raised. She also raised the concern that it might be a lawyers' bonanza. I can tell her that there have been four reported challenges to the current exceptions since 1983; they are all on sexual deviancy. It is not bad going that there have been only four in the past24 years. In Victoria and New South Wales in Australia there is a long list of exceptions, including on political opinions and religious beliefs. In New South Wales, there have been no challenges to this law since it was introduced in 1990, and in Victoria there have been very few, if any. Therefore, there should be no cause for concern that this measure might be a lawyers' charter.
	The Richardson expert committee and the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill agree that the broad definition of mental disorder introduced in the Bill, which we support, must be balanced by a set of exclusions. The Joint Committee, of which I was a member, said:
	"We conclude that a broad definition of mental disorder in the draft Bill must be accompanied by explicit and specific exclusions which safeguard against the legislation being used inappropriately as a means of social control."
	The Bill defines mental disorder very broadly as any disorder or disability of the mind. There is now only one exclusion, for dependence on alcohol and drugs. It is instructive to compare the amended 1983 Act with mental health legislation in other common law countries, all of which have narrower definitions of mental disorder and broader exclusions.
	Dr. Metcalfe of Justice has said:
	"The European Court of Human Rights has given a clear judgment stating that the definition of mental disorder must be very clear in order for exercise of detention powers to be lawful. The use of exclusions is a standard feature of most common law jurisdictions in meeting that requirement. They meet the requirements of legal certainty, of guaranteeing individual autonomy and of ensuring that the powers of detention are used no more than strictly necessary."
	The broad definition has two consequences. First, it covers all the diagnoses listed in the relevant World Health Organisation international classification of diseases, some of which even the Government acknowledge might be inappropriate in respect of compulsory powers. Secondly, it covers almost any significant deviation from a normal condition of the mind, however temporary.
	In the view of the Mental Health Alliance, there must be some limits to guard against inappropriate use of a clinician's powers of detention as a form of social control. The Mental Health Act Commission said in evidence to the Joint Committee:
	"For the law to be of value—to patients, State administrators, mental health professionals, the police, the courts or the Tribunal—its meaning cannot rest upon the discretion of those working within its framework. We do not find it difficult to envisage the inappropriate use, however well meant, of mental health legislation for non-medical purposes of social control".
	We need certainty to avoid the field day for lawyers to which the Minister referred. The limits on powers are welcomed by the clinicians, the British Psychological Society—if I can get another plug in for it—the British Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Nursing and occupational therapists. Many of them have been prayed in aid on many occasions by the Minister—and now I am praying them in aid for us.
	The new definition of mental disorder—any disorder or disability of mind—could include certain mental states and states relating to certain sexual behaviours. The scope of the new definition is much broader than that in the current Act. If the numbers subject to compulsion are not to be markedly and inappropriately increased, the exclusions are necessary. This is important because the definitions in the 1983 Act are the gateway to the compulsory powers that we have been debating. It is important to protect the fundamental right to liberty.
	Lord Alderdice said that
	"without a serious look at understanding issues such as culture, politics, religion, breaking the law, sexual behaviour and so on, we could end up dragging into the net all sorts of people who are not suffering from mental illness in a proper sense and it becomes a question of how we deal with people who are difficult, different or deviant in our society. That is a real problem for colleagues in psychiatry, not least because of a move to diagnosis on the basis of people's behaviour and a set of symptoms, rather then necessarily understanding something more about the depth of the disorder and its likely prognosis."
	In Scotland—if we may pray in aid the Scottish again—there are the following exclusions: sexual orientation; sexual deviancy; transsexualism; transvestism; dependence on or use of alcohol or drugs; behaviour which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; and acting as no prudent person would act. In New South Wales, there is a raft of exclusions, as there is in New Zealand. So again, it is the norm to have exclusions in various jurisdictions around the world.
	On the specific exclusion in question, people misuse alcohol if they become drunk as a result. They misuse illicit drugs just by taking them, and other drugs by using them for non-therapeutic or non-prescribed purposes. In both cases, that includes a level of intoxication that does not cause lasting harm or dependence. Both misuse and dependence are covered by international classification of diseases 10, and are therefore classified as mental disorders. It is therefore necessary that the exclusion be worded to cover both, so that neither the binge drinker nor the casual consumer of drugs is considered a case for compulsion.
	On sexual preference and gender identity, what is socially acceptable as sexual behaviour is subject to change over time, because it is embodied in religious and cultural value systems. For instance, homosexuality, as we discussed in Committee, was at one time—some time ago, fortunately—considered unacceptable and a sign of mental dysfunction. It was until recently included as a mental disorder in ICD 10. It is no longer necessary to cover sexual orientation because it is neither listed as a mental disorder nor considered in society as a disorder. Indeed, people are protected by anti-discrimination laws and by the Human Rights Act against such an approach.
	The House of Lords discussed at great length all sorts of fetishes, transvestism and auto-erotic strangulation, on which they proved to be something in the way of experts. What a lot of fun they do have in the House of Lords.  [Interruption.] We had sex addiction. As the Government have expressed great concern about whether this exclusion might cover paedophilia, and in the wish for a compromise, the amendment makes it clear that paedophilia is not within the scope of the exclusion.
	There is a lot more that I would like to say, but I will finish as I want colleagues to be able to get in. The provision on political, cultural or religious beliefs—we had this debate in Committee—is of particular importance to members of the black and minority ethnic community. Again, it is a consideration that they have written to us about in serious terms. They feel that what are considered normal practices and beliefs for many members of that community could be construed in extreme circumstances—I am not saying that this will happen every day—as constituting a mental disorder. The perceptions of that community are perhaps more important that the number of times that the provision might in practice be used.
	That is why we have brought back this amendment, which we consider very important. There have to be proper checks and balances in the Bill if we are to broaden the definition of mental disorder in the way that we all support. We want a better balance and to protect people, so that those who have other problems can be treated for them and not have them re-badged as a mental illness, and thereby suffer and run the risk that they will be taken under compulsion for something that is not a mental illness.

Rosie Winterton: It would not be possible to detain people for their religious beliefs, because the Act states that people can be detained only if they have a mental disorder. A person's religion is not a mental disorder, and neither are his political or cultural beliefs or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, his sexual preference or identity.
	The existing legislation provides an ability to appeal to the mental health review tribunal. The principles that will be put in the code were accepted when they were considered by the Lords, and they make it clear that unlawful discrimination is not allowed. The relevant criteria—that the person involved has a mental disorder and is capable of causing serious harm to himself or others, and that appropriate medical treatment is available that must be delivered in a hospital setting—have to be met. If they are not, the person involved cannot be detained.
	I can understand why people feel that the amendment would be nice, but I have some concerns about it. The Mental Health Alliance has said that exclusions act as a check on clinical discretion, but I believe that we should be trying to ensure that clinicians can treat people as they need it. The amendment is seen as a safeguard, but I do not think that it is because, as I said earlier, the circumstances that it lists are not mental disorders. Legal exclusions should cover things that are mental disorders, not things that are not.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant toOrder [18 June].

Angela Browning: This could be the last intervention that I make on the Bill. One of the amendments that the Minister did not accept in Committee was the request to have people with autistic spectrum disorders added to the exemptions in the Bill. The National Autistic Society, of which I am a vice-president, writes today about the Report stage, saying that people with autistic spectrum disorders continue to be detained inappropriately, and the society believes that their situation will be worsened by the Bill, not improvedby it.

Rosie Winterton: Indeed. We have also had some very constructive dialogue with the new coalition of mental health organisations, particularly about the role of the responsible clinician.
	We have tried to continue to engage with Members of the other place throughout the discussions. I pay particular tribute to Lord Williamson for his help in developing the age-appropriate services. As I said, our discussions in this House have followed on from many of the discussions in the other House, which have informed our debates. I believe that although we have not been able to respond to all the concerns raised there, we have been able to respond to very many of them.
	I should like quickly to mention the Making Decisions Alliance and all that it has contributed to the development of the new safeguards for those deprived of their liberty in their best interests. We sometimes forget that the Bournewood changes are a very important part of the legislation, about which I know that two Opposition Members are particularly concerned.
	I should also mention all the work put into the analysis of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Of course, I should also thank the officials who have supported me so effectively throughout the Bill's passage. I hope that hon. Members would say that the officials have been open to discussion and approachable to Members of the House if they have been needed to give other information. I also thank all members of the Committee. We had an excellent debate with participation from all sides, and we were able to explore many of the issues very thoroughly.
	I want to stress how much we want to continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders in implementing the Bill once it receives Royal Assent. I know that many have already been involved in developing the code of practice, and we would certainly like further input from all those with an interest, including Members of the House. Many have also been involved in drafting the secondary legislation, such as measures on new professional roles. Again, we want to work with all concerned to make sure that we get this right.
	All told, I think that the Bill that we are—I hope—about to send back to the other place is a significant improvement on the one that came to this House, although we have been able to reflect some of the discussions in the amendments that we have been considering over the past two days. I hope that Members of the other place will feel that we have taken on board their concerns and responded to the points that they made, as well as to the points made in Committee. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House and wishing it a speedy completion.

Tim Loughton: I echo the Minister's words in saying that the Bill has provoked much debate and controversy, which I think is probably something of an understatement. It has been a long haul; as she said, nine years have gone by. I think that I have been responsible for the matter on the Opposition Benches for five of those nine years, and that she has had responsibility for a little longer.  [ Interruption. ] It feels like we have been at it for a long time on the Mental Health Bill. We have been through two draft Bills, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, this Bill, the Richardson expert committee and countless meetings, briefings and debates with various members of the Mental Health Alliance and others.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed. We had a lively debate in Committee—it was described as "helpful and superb"—and I also thank the Bill team, who were helpful.
	The Mental Health Alliance is a big alliance that formed because of the Bill. Whether or not we agree with everything that it has said, it has had an enormous input into the Bill. We must remember the enormous amount of good work that many of the organisations that form the Mental Health Alliance do on behalf of thousands of people up and down the country every day of the week. We need a Bill that helps those organisations, because they look after some of the most vulnerable members of society.
	I pay tribute to the work that was done in the Lords. I disagree with the Minister about whether this Bill is better than the one that came from the Lords. An enormous amount of professional expertise was applied to the Bill in the Lords, and I think that Members of the other place may have a few things to say when it returns to them.
	I pay tribute to the many professionals who day in, day out do a difficult job looking after people with a mental illness. Again, our duty is to make their job easier and to clarify the law under which they work, which has always been our intention. I agree with the Minister that there is a need to update the legislation. The 1983 Act was largely based on the 1959 Act, so it is almost 50 years since the underlying principle of the legislation was updated.
	There have been advances in mental health treatment, mental health law and the flexibility with which we deal with patients. Rightly, we must respect people's lifestyles: we have moved away from the asylum system; the professions involved have changed; and there are human rights incompatibilities. All along, we have said that we need a Mental Health Bill, but we need the right Mental Health Bill.
	I welcome the Minister's success in getting the Government to move a substantial distance in a number of areas. She took note of the record six defeats in the Lords on substantial points of great principle. We welcome what we have seen on Report in the past two days on age-appropriate treatment. I also echo the Minister's tribute to Lord Williamson's amendments, which started the process.
	As I have said, we have made good moves on introducing victims' rights into the Bill. I welcome the compromise on treatability and pay tribute to thehon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for the intelligent, balanced and assiduous way in which he introduced it. We have removed some of the more objectionable and unworkable parts of community treatment orders, not least the provision on abstaining from particular behaviours, and we have linked CTOs to medical treatment.
	However, we have not gone far enough. The Bill still fails to take into account the international evidence, which the Government commissioned. It is still far too open-ended, and as such we think that it provides too much of a deterrent for people to engage with mental health services. We are still at odds with the Government about the roles of various "responsible clinicians", which may be open to legal challenge. Furthermore, inconsistencies remain with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the renewal of detention following initial sectioning. We still have serious problems about the definitions and the exclusions. It is unfortunate that the debate on that was truncated, because those are substantial points of disagreement that go to the heart of the Bill.
	Unfortunately, we have had no movement on impaired decision making. The new clause was meant as an antidote to the stigma that surrounds mental illness, which concerns us all. Some of the Minister's references to high-profile cases, such as the Michael Stone case, were unfortunate. She mentioned the Michael Stone case today and in Committee.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) paid me an entirely unmerited compliment in Committee. I should like to reciprocate by paying him an entirely merited compliment on the general tone of his comments tonight and on his perspicacity and persistence in putting through his amendment on treatability. The amendment has wide support and is a great credit to him, and I am glad that we have got that one secured.
	If I do not vote for the Bill tonight, it will not be because I oppose changes in mental health legislation, but because I regard the Bill in the form in which we are now delivering it to another place as work in progress rather than work completed. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has detailed our continuing objections to it, and I would like briefly to remind the House of them.
	The first relates to people with impaired decision making, and I must point out the anomaly not only between English and Scottish law but between the treatment of physical and mental illness. The treatment of a person with a physical illness who has mental capacity and who withholds consent for treatment would, in law, constitute assault, but such treatment of a person with mental illness will be sanctioned by legislation. However strong the arguments for administering such treatment might be, this is a difficult principle to breach.
	I am also concerned about the excessive scope of community treatment orders and the nature of the exclusions that we have debated over the past two days. Functionally, my concern is for the people who are not represented among those joining the debate, namely, people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, or with different levels of sophistication or differing abilities to stick up for themselves. The hon. Member for Rhondda touched on this issue a moment ago. Such people might find themselves enmeshed in the system. All the conventional measurements in relation to the involvement of people from black and minority ethnic—BME—backgrounds suggest that they are clearly being very badly served.
	I am also worried about the absence or patchiness of treatment facilities in some parts of the country. We cannot necessarily legislate to put that right, although we have done so in relation to age-appropriate treatment. I want to pay tribute to the Minister, who made some good changes in Committee. I would not wish to caricature the Government's position at allin this regard, but I do have those outstanding reservations.
	Behind those reservations are two considerations. The first is that there is some kind of ghost in the machine that we have not yet fully eliminated. It is the ghost of control systems, as opposed to the treatment, support and protection of minorities and people with real difficulties and sensitivities in their lives. My strong feeling is that if we are worried about people with mental health problems in the community, the best way to approach the issue is positively and at source through appropriate treatment, rather than seeking to get out of the problems by saying how toughly we can control them. That is not to say that there should be no controls. Of course there should be controls, and they have been hallowed in statute for many years, but they need to be weighed very carefully in each case.
	Finally, let me make an appeal to the Minister. I think I can do that on the basis of the constructive relationship that we enjoyed during the passage of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and subsequently in the context of some its implementation. The Minister has shown an exemplary readiness for dialogue. During the passage of the 2005 Act, with which I was more intimately concerned than I am with this Bill, progress seemed impossible at one stage. There was a time constraint, there were huge differences in views, and there were passionate concerns about such issues as euthanasia. Nevertheless, we somehow managed to work ourselves into an almost complete consensus by the end. We have not yet done that with the Mental Health Bill, which is why I shall not be supporting it tonight.
	I think that we are nearly there. I think that if Ministers are prepared to respond to concerns expressed in another place, to respond again when they return to us—as no doubt they will—and to iron out the remaining issues, we shall have a Bill that reflects our power to debate and, above all, our power to engage with this most sensitive group of people, to whom we all feel that we have an obligation and whom we need to serve by getting the legislation right.

Brian Iddon: I, too, congratulate the Minister. In some respects, this has been a very difficult Bill. Some of the arguments have been separated only by a thin line, which was exemplified by those that we heard today on new clause 12. It has certainly been a difficult Bill for the Minister to steer through the House, but she has done it with courage and professionalism, and has presented her arguments with great clarity.
	I want to make it clear that the Committee was not full of people who were always going to agree with the Government. Some of the awkward squad were there. I include myself in that: I was prepared to challenge the Government, although on this occasion I have agreed wholeheartedly with the Government line. I am very pleased to be able to say that. I believe that the addition of the advocacy measure to the final Bill is a great step forward. I was a little surprised that it was not included initially, but I am very pleased that it is there now.
	I must tell all those who have deluged me, and other Committee members, with briefings that there has just been too much of it. It has jammed my e-mail inbox, and filled my sacks of mail. I have a confession to make: I have not read it all. I think that there is a message there. Why should we receive a briefing from the Mental Health Alliance and, at the same time, briefings from all its members? I am grateful for the briefings, but I ask those who sent them please to send us a few less in future.
	During the Bill's passage, I have detected a tension between psychiatrists and psychologists. The Government are trying to build a modern mental health service in which all professionals work in harmony and to the same end—to help the patients who benefit from the service. I hope that the professionals will listen to that message.
	At the beginning of the Committee stage I felt like a member of the Stasi, being accused of wanting to lock people up for having strange religious practices, political views or sexual deviancies of one kind or another. In fact, I felt—and now believe wholeheartedly—that the Minister was trying to strike a balance between liberty and human rights on the one hand, and on the other hand the need to recognise that there are people out there who can benefit from modernised mental health services. People with serious personality disorders, for instance, can benefit from the application of appropriate treatment, with a consequent saving of lives that might otherwise be lost as a result of both homicides and suicides.

Lynne Jones: I have no trouble in supporting the Government and voting for the Bill, as it is a substantial improvement on the current legislation. I thank Members of all parties here and in the other place, as well as those who have briefed and supported us in our discussions, for their work in helping to bring about the current state of play in respect of the Bill. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Minister. As other Members have mentioned, she has been very open and has bent over backwards to discuss the Bill frankly. I also thank her for her attendance at meetings of the all-party group on mental health.
	The Bill has been much improved since it first appeared many years ago. Much of the angst that we have experienced in the past eight or nine years could have been alleviated had greater regard been paid to the expert committee that reported in 1999 or 2000.Too much emphasis was placed on public safety as a result of some tragic cases that were in the news at that time.
	I tried to intervene on the Minister on the subject of impaired decision making. If we are to protect the public and reduce the tragically high number of suicides that result from mental illness, people must receive the treatment that they need as early as possible. The effectiveness of our mental health services is judged not by the number of people who are subject to detention and sectioning, but by our effectiveness at getting services to them when they need them. I am still disappointed that the Government were unable to accept the new clause on impaired decision making.
	Yesterday, there was some consternation when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) suggested that there might be more mental health Bills. However, we have not been able to discuss yesterday or today new clause 1, which would give people suffering from a mental health problem a right to assessment, and we still do not have rights to a comprehensive care plan on discharge. There are issues that we need to address beyond this Bill to ensure that we get excellent services to people when they need them. The Government have done much to invest in mental health services, but I am afraid that it is still a Cinderella service. That is the—
	 It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [18 June].

Order for Second Reading read.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuantto Standing Order No. 90(5) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing the debate. He spelled out clearly the importance of postal services to his constituents and emphasised his concerns about the future of the Crown post office in Chelmsford high street following the announcement made by Post Office Ltd on 19 April of its decision to move the branch to a nearby WH Smith store. I know that he has been lobbying hard and making strong representations on behalf of his constituents. I will try to answer the questions that he asked about Crown post offices, although I must emphasise that the Government do not have a role in detailed operational decisions such as that on the Chelmsford office, which he accepts. Nevertheless, I emphasise that the Government share the concerns of hon. Members about securing a sustainable future for the business.
	The hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is a pressing need to tackle the significant losses that the network of Crown post offices is incurring. There are about 450 Crown post offices and it is estimated that they lost about £70 million last year alone. Clearly, that position is not sustainable, and the Government fully support the Post Office's policy for reducing the losses, which includes maintaining a core network of Crown post offices while continuing to drive forward efficiencies and the franchising of branches when suitable opportunities arise. We welcome the commercial deal between Post Office Ltd and WH Smith because it will secure the retention of a main post office service in each of the 70 areas affected. Without that deal, there would have been a huge question mark hanging over the future of many Crown post offices and a question of whether there might be outright closures.
	Concern has been expressed about the service provided in franchised Crown branches. The evidence from the pilots with WH Smith shows that it is wrong to say to customers that franchising a post office will automatically lead to a reduction in the quality of service. Staff at franchised post offices are trained by Post Office Ltd in exactly the same way as directly managed staff. Franchisees are bound by stringent contractual requirements to ensure that service standards remain at the same high level following the transfer from the direct management of Post Office Ltd. It is important to say that franchising is not closure. Franchises and conversions do not reduce the number of post offices.
	I can appreciate that customers will initially be unsure about the service implications of moving the branch from its existing location, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. Change can be unsettling—for some more so than others—but I understand that there is positive evidence from mystery shopper visits to, and focus group feedback on, the six pilot transfers to WH Smith stores that took place last year. The majority of customers welcome the pleasant environment and excellent customer service. More generally, many customers welcome the fact that there is a complementary retail offering on the same premises, as well as extended opening hours, which usually go hand in hand with the transfer to a franchise partner. Indeed, I understand that the new Chelmsford branch will offer extended opening hours of 9 am to 5.30 pm from Monday to Saturday.
	Critically, the decision emphasises to customers that post office services will continue to be provided in Chelmsford town centre. Almost 14,000 post offices are already run by private businesses—individuals or franchise chains—including some 900 or so of the 1,400 large main post offices in town centres. The network has always relied on private business for the majority of its outlets.
	The hon. Gentleman spelled out in detail his concerns about the consultation arrangements. It is important to stress that the local public are being consulted by Post Office Ltd. As agreed between the Post Office and Postwatch, the consumer champion, in the code of practice on post office closures and relocations, there is consultation on the service implications for each franchised office. However, it is always made clear that the decision to transfer the management of a Crown branch to a franchise partner is an operational decision for the Post Office to take.
	The proposal to convert the WH Smith branch in Chelmsford went to public consultation on 30 May 2007 and runs to 11 July 2007. I would expect the important matters that the hon. Gentleman raised this evening, such as the disabled parking bays, to be addressed during the consultation. I hope that his meeting today with Post Office Ltd gives him some reassurance that it will take those matters on board. This evening's Adjournment debate will help in that process. The current planned month of the transfer is October 2007.
	Post Office Ltd has taken decisions on which branches will convert to WH Smith management based on a range of factors, including the proximity to WH Smith stores that are seen as suitable to accommodate a post office franchise, existing overheads such as the lease on properties, and what the company and WH Smith consider to be the future potential of branches. They are not a reflection on the current branch performance or on the people working in the branches.
	In some stores, as in Chelmsford, the first floor provides the most suitable space to accommodate the post office facility. I understand that the existing branch has a total of 10 fortress-style counters, and the new location will also provide 10 positions, with eight of those being open-plan. As regards disability access, Post Office Ltd has given an assurance that all branches will be fully accessible to all customers, with special arrangements in place to assist customers with special access needs, for example in branches like Chelmsford, where the post office counter is not on the ground floor.
	As one would expect from an established prominent high street retailer, WH Smith is also fully aware of its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and will ensure that the branch remains fully accessible for all customers, including those with mobility problems. Although I understand that the store, as the hon. Gentleman described, does not have an escalator from the first floor down to ground level, a customer lift is available in-store for customers unable to negotiate the stairs. I understand that the lift holds a maximum of 13 people at any one time and is capable of accommodating pushchairs and wheelchairs. The Post Office and WH Smith are therefore confident that this will adequately accommodate the needs of customers.
	Many customers will see the products that WH Smith and the Post Office sell as complementing each other. The deal with WH Smith guarantees that that branch will be operated for a minimum period of seven years. In the extremely unlikely event that WH Smith does not want to extend the initial contract or is unable to fulfil it, the Post Office would obviously take steps to ensure that services are retained in that key location. It must be remembered that typically some 10 per cent. of the offices in the network change hands every year, so the Post Office is very experienced in managing that successfully. The deal between Post Office Ltd and WH Smith is a purely operational and commercial issue for the parties, and does not impact on the Government's recent consultation on the network.
	There are a number of challenges facing the post office network, including the need to tackle the losses of the Crown network. Although many of us and our constituents say we like our post office and value it highly, the reality is that, collectively, we do not use it as we once did. It is an undeniable fact that many people now prefer to pay their bills by direct debit or use one of the Post Office's competitors, do their banking via the internet or use a cash point machine, renew their motor vehicle licences online, and keep in touch using emails or text messages.
	Some 4 million fewer customers are using post offices each week compared with just two years ago. Although many Crown offices might still be very busy and well used, they are trading low margin products in high cost locations. In the financial year 2005-06 the post office network lost £2 million a week, as we have discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions in the past six months at least. When the figures for the performance in the financial year 2006-07 are released, it is expected that the losses will be closer to £4 million per week.
	For too long the Post Office was deprived of much needed investment. The Government have reversed that approach and invested substantial sums in supporting the network—some £2 billion since 1999. We have supported Post Office Ltd in its efforts to develop its range of financial service products, with Government's investment having included £500 million for the Horizon project to bring computer systems into every post office throughout the UK.
	The Post Office recognises the need to increase its range of services, adapt to changing shopping habits and give sub-postmasters products to sell that appeal to the needs of today's and tomorrow's customers. Post Office Ltd is the largest provider of foreign currency in the UK and the third largest provider of travel insurance. The Post Office is also the UK's fifth largest fixed-line telephone service provider, and one in every 25 credit cards issued last year was from the Post Office. So new products have been introduced and more are in the pipeline.
	Through the statement made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last month and the£1.7 billion committed to Post Office Ltd until 2011, the Government have set out a framework to create stability for the network so that the Post Office can move forward with confidence and rise to the challenges of the 21st century.
	I do not underestimate the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has outlined on behalf of his constituents. I am convinced that Post Office Ltd will take those points on board and respond to him positively. The urban reinvention programme of several years ago did not start out as the best consultative exercise that the country has ever seen. The Post Office recognises that, as does Postwatch, and I have said on behalf of the Government that that was the case. However, the position when it finished was a lot stronger than it had been before, Postwatch is very well placed to ensure that it represents the consumer much more effectively and Post Office Ltd is becoming much more sensitive and can be expected to respond positively by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make sure that the comments that he has made tonight will be communicated to Post Office Ltd as part of the consultative exercise.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes toEleven o'clock.